NEJM original articles

Background. In patients with shock, whether noninvasive blood-pressure monitoring is an effective alternative to the recommended use of an arterial catheter is uncertain.

Methods. In this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients who had shock and had been admitted to an intensive care unit within the past 24 hours to receive early insertion (<4 hours after randomization) of an arterial catheter (invasive strategy) or to be monitored with an automated brachial cuff (noninvasive strategy). Insertion of an arterial catheter was allowed later in patients assigned to the noninvasive-strategy group who met prespecified safety criteria. The primary outcome was death from any cause at day 28 (noninferiority margin, 5 percentage points). Adverse events of special interest related to the blood-pressure-monitoring device that was used were recorded, as was patient-reported pain or discomfort related to the ongoing presence of the device.

Results. A total of 1010 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients assigned to the noninvasive-strategy group and 502 assigned to the invasive-strategy group were included in the analyses. A total of 74 patients (14.7%) in the noninvasive-strategy group and 493 (98.2%) in the invasive-strategy group underwent insertion of an arterial catheter. Death within 28 days occurred in 173 patients (34.3%) in the noninvasive-strategy group and 185 (36.9%) in the invasive-strategy group (adjusted risk difference, -3.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -8.9 to 2.5; P = 0.006 for noninferiority). Results of per-protocol analyses were similar in the two groups. A total of 66 patients (13.1%) in the noninvasive-strategy group and 45 (9.0%) in the invasive-strategy group had at least 1 day of pain or discomfort related to the ongoing presence of the blood-pressure-monitoring device. Hematoma or hemorrhage related to the arterial catheter occurred in 5 patients (1.0%) in the noninvasive-strategy group and 41 patients (8.2%) in the invasive-strategy group.

Conclusions. Among patients with shock, results for death from any cause at day 28 indicated that management without early arterial catheter insertion was noninferior to early catheter insertion. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03680963.).

Background. Current guideline recommendations for the use of beta-blockers after myocardial infarction without reduced ejection fraction are based on trials conducted before routine reperfusion, invasive care, complete revascularization, and contemporary pharmacologic therapies became standard practice.

Methods. We conducted an open-label, randomized trial in Spain and Italy to evaluate the effect of beta-blocker therapy, as compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in patients with acute myocardial infarction (with or without ST-segment elevation) and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, or hospitalization for heart failure.

Results. In total, 4243 patients were randomly assigned to receive beta-blocker therapy and 4262 to receive no beta-blocker therapy; after exclusions, 8438 patients were included in the main analysis. During a median follow-up of 3.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 316 patients (22.5 events per 1000 patient-years) in the beta-blocker group and in 307 patients (21.7 events per 1000 patient-years) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.22; P = 0.63). Death from any cause occurred in 161 patients and 153 patients, respectively (11.2 vs. 10.5 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.33); reinfarction in 143 patients and 143 patients (10.2 vs. 10.1 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.27); and hospitalization for heart failure in 39 patients and 44 patients (2.7 vs. 3.0 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.38). No apparent between-group differences in safety outcomes were noted.

Conclusions. Among patients discharged after invasive care for a myocardial infarction with a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%, beta-blocker therapy appeared to have no effect on the incidence of death from any cause, reinfarction, or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03596385; EudraCT number, 2017-002485-40.).

Background. The evidence supporting beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction was established before the introduction of modern coronary reperfusion therapy and secondary prevention strategies.

Methods. In an open-label, randomized trial with blinded end-point evaluation, conducted in Denmark and Norway, we assigned patients who had had a myocardial infarction and who had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive long-term beta-blocker therapy within 14 days after the event or no beta-blocker therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or major adverse cardiovascular events (new myocardial infarction, unplanned coronary revascularization, ischemic stroke, heart failure, or malignant ventricular arrhythmias).

Results. A total of 5574 patients underwent randomization and were included in the main analyses - 2783 in the beta-blocker group and 2791 in the no-beta-blocker group. After a median follow-up of 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.6), a primary end-point event had occurred in 394 patients (14.2%) in the beta-blocker group and in 454 patients (16.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.98; P = 0.03). Death from any cause occurred in 4.2% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 4.4% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; myocardial infarction occurred in 5.0% and 6.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92), unplanned coronary revascularization in 3.9% and 3.9%, ischemic stroke in 1.6% and 1.3%, heart failure in 1.5% and 1.9%, and malignant ventricular arrhythmias in 0.5% and 0.6%. No apparent differences in safety outcomes were observed between the groups.

Conclusions. Among patients with a myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, beta-blocker therapy led to a lower risk of death or major adverse cardiovascular events than no beta-blocker therapy. (Funded by the Health South-East research program in Norway and others; BETAMI-DANBLOCK ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03646357 and NCT03778554.).

Background. Patients with previously untreated, locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who are not candidates for inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) have limited treatment options.

Methods. In this international, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled patients with previously untreated, advanced triple-negative breast cancer who were not candidates for PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors owing to previous use or coexisting conditions. Patients had either PD-L1-negative tumors with a combined positive score (CPS; the number of PD-L1-staining tumor cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100) of less than 10 or PD-L1-positive tumors with a CPS of 10 or higher and were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin). The primary end point was progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response, the duration of response, and safety.

Results. Among 558 patients, median progression-free survival was 9.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 11.1) with sacituzumab govitecan and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.2) with chemotherapy (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.77; P<0.001). An objective response was confirmed in 48% of patients (95% CI, 42 to 54) who received sacituzumab govitecan and 46% (95% CI, 40 to 52) who received chemotherapy; the median response duration was 12.2 months (95% CI, 9.7 to 13.8) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.4), respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 66% of patients who received sacituzumab govitecan (most frequently neutropenia [in 43%], diarrhea [in 9%], and leukopenia [in 7%]) and in 62% of patients who received chemotherapy (most frequently neutropenia [in 41%], anemia [in 16%], and leukopenia [in 13%]). The incidence of adverse events that led to discontinuation of sacituzumab govitecan or at least one chemotherapy drug was 4% and 12%, respectively.

Conclusions. Sacituzumab govitecan led to significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy among patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer who were not candidates for treatment with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher with sacituzumab govitecan was similar to that with chemotherapy, but adverse events were common. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ASCENT-03 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05382299.).